Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-d8cs5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-06T06:23:16.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rationalizing Democracy: The Perceptual Bias and (Un)Democratic Behavior

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2022

SUTHAN KRISHNARAJAN Open the ORCID record for SUTHAN KRISHNARAJAN [Opens in a new window]
SUTHAN KRISHNARAJAN*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University, Denmark
*
Suthan Krishnarajan, Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, Aarhus University, Denmark, [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Democracy often confronts citizens with a dilemma: stand firm on democracy while losing out on policy or accept undemocratic behavior and gain politically. Existing literature demonstrates that citizens generally choose the latter—and that they do so deliberately. Yet there is an alternative possibility. Citizens can avoid this uncomfortable dilemma altogether by rationalizing their understandings of democracy. When a politician advances undesired policies without violating democratic rules and norms, people find ways to perceive the behavior as undemocratic. When a politician acts undemocratically to promote desired policies, citizens muster up arguments for considering it democratic. Original survey experiments in the United States, and 22 democracies worldwide, provide strong support for this argument. It is thus not deliberate acceptance, but a fundamentally different perceptual logic that drives the widespread approval of undemocratic behavior in today’s democracies.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 117 , Issue 2 , May 2023 , pp. 474 - 496
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Anduiza, Eva, Gallego, Aina, and Muñoz, Jordi. 2013. “Turning a Blind Eye: Experimental Evidence of Partisan Bias in Attitudes toward Corruption.” Comparative Political Studies 46 (12): 1664–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Badrinathan, Sumitra. 2021. “Educative Interventions to Combat Misinformation: Evidence from a Field Experiment in India.” American Political Science Review 115 (4): 1325–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banner, James M., ed. 2019. Presidential Misconduct: From George Washington to Today. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Barvosa, Edwina. 2018. Deliberative Democracy Now: LGBT Equality and the Emergence of Large-Scale Deliberative Systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baviskar, Siddhartha, and Malone, Mary T. Fran. 2004. “What Democracy Means to Citizens—and Why It Matters.” European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 76 (April): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boese, Vanessa A., Amanda B. Edgell, Sebastian Hellmeier, Seraphine F. Maerz, and Staffan I. Lindberg. 2021. “How Democracies Prevail: Democratic Resilience as a Two-Stage Process.” Democratization 28 (5): 885–907.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Campbell, Angus, Converse, Phillip E., Miller, Warren E., and Stikes, Donald E.. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Carey, John, Gretchen Helmke, Brendan Nyhan, Mitchell Sanders, and Susan Stokes. 2019. “Searching for Bright Lines in the Trump Presidency.” Perspectives on Politics 17 (3): 699–718.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carey, John, Katherine Clayton, Gretchen Helmke, Brendan Nyhan, Mitchell Sanders, and Susan Stokes. 2020. “Who Will Defend Democracy? Evaluating Tradeoffs in Candidate Support among Partisan Donors and Voters.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 32 (1): 230–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceci, Stephen J., and Williams, Wendy M.. 2018. “Who Decides What Is Acceptable Speech on Campus? Why Restricting Free Speech Is Not the Answer.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 13 (3): 299–323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chambers, John R., Schlenker, Barry R., and Collisson, Brian. 2013. “Ideology and Prejudice: The Role of Value Conflicts.” Psychological Science 24 (2): 140–49.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Collier, David, and Levitsky, Steven. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49 (3): 430–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, et al. 2011. “Conceptualizing and Measuring Democracy: A New Approach.” Perspectives on Politics 9 (2): 247–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, et al. 2020. Varieties of Democracy: Measuring Two Centuries of Political Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawford, Jarret T., and Pilanski, Jane M.. 2014. “Political Intolerance, Right and Left.” Political Psychology 35 (6): 841–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csehi, Robert. 2019. “Neither Episodic, nor Destined to Failure? The Endurance of Hungarian Populism after 2010.” Democratization 26 (6): 1011–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1971. Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J., Shin, Doh, and Jou, Willy. 2007. “Understanding Democracy: Data from Unlikely Places.” Journal of Democracy 18 (4): 142–56.Google Scholar
Davis, Nicholas T., Goidel, Kirby, and Zhao, Yikai. 2021. “The Meanings of Democracy among Mass Publics.” Social Indicators Research 153 (3): 849–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dias, Nicholas, and Lelkes, Yphtach. 2022. “The Nature of Affective Polarization: Disentangling Policy Disagreement from Partisan Identity.” American Journal of Political Science 66 (3): 775–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ding, Iza, and Slater, Dan. 2021. “Democratic Decoupling.” Democratization 28 (1): 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eggers, Andrew C. 2014. “Partisanship and Electoral Accountability: Evidence from the UK Expenses Scandal.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9 (4): 441–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrín, Mónica, and Kriesi, Hanspeter, eds. 2016. How Europeans View and Evaluate Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1957. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foa, Roberto Stefan, and Mounk, Yascha. 2017. “The Signs of Deconsolidation.” Journal of Democracy 28 (1): 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedom House. 2021. “Freedom in the World 2021.” Report.Google Scholar
Funk, Kendall D., Paul, Hannah L., and Philips, Andrew Q.. 2022. “Point Break: Using Machine Learning to Uncover a Critical Mass in Women’s Representation.” Political Science Research and Methods 10 (2): 372–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gaines, Brian J., James H. Kuklinski, Paul J. Quirk, Buddy Peyton, and Jay Verkuilen. 2007. “Same Facts, Different Interpretations: Partisan Motivation and Opinion on Iraq.” The Journal of Politics 69 (4): 957–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallie, W. B. 1955. “Essentially Contested Concepts.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56 (1): 167–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, Matthew H., and Svolik, Milan W.. 2020. “Democracy in America? Partisanship, Polarization, and the Robustness of Support for Democracy in the United States.” American Political Science Review 114 (2): 392–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hajnal, Zoltan, Lajevardi, Nazita, and Nielson, Lindsay. 2017. “Voter Identification Laws and the Suppression of Minority Votes.” Journal of Politics 79 (2): 363–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hastorf, Albert H., and Cantril, Hadley. 1954. “They Saw a Game: A Case Study.” Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 49 (1): 129–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Held, David. 2006. Models of Democracy, 3rd ed. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellmeier, Sebastian, Rowan Cole, Sandra Grahn, Palina Kolvani, Jean Lachapelle, Anna Lührmann, Seraphine F. Maerz, et al. 2021. “State of the World 2020: Autocratization Turns Viral.” Democratization 28 (6): 1053–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, William, and Lajevardi, Nazita. 2019. “Effects of Divisive Political Campaigns on the Day-to-Day Segregation of Arab and Muslim Americans.” American Political Science Review 113 (1): 270–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howell, William G., and Moe, Terry M.. 2020. Presidents, Populism, and the Crisis of Democracy. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jefferson, Hakeem. 2021. “The Curious Case of Black Conservatives: Construct Validity and the 7-Point Liberal-Conservative Scale.” Social Sciences Research Network. Working paper. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3602209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2007. “The Cognitively Illiberal State.” Stanford Law Review 60 (1): 115–54.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M. 2016. “The Politically Motivated Reasoning Paradigm, Part 1: What Politically Motivated Reasoning Is and How to Measure It.” In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences, eds. Scott, Robert and Kosslyn, Stephen, 1–16. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Kahan, Dan M., Hoffman, David A., Braman, Donald, and Evans, Danieli. 2012. “They Saw a Protest: Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction.” Stanford Law Review 64 (4): 851–906.Google Scholar
Knutsen, Carl Henrik, and Wegmann, Simone. 2016. “Is Democracy about Redistribution?” Democratization 23 (1): 164–92.10.1080/13510347.2015.1094460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krishnarajan, Suthan. 2022. “Replication Data for: Rationalizing Democracy: The Perceptual Bias and (Un)Democratic Behavior.” Harvard Dataverse. Dataset. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WGPHFT.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krizsan, Andrea, and Roggeband, Conny. 2018. “Towards a Conceptual Framework for Struggles over Democracy in Backsliding States: Gender Equality Policy in Central Eastern Europe.” Politics and Governance 6 (3): 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kunda, Ziva. 1990. “The Case for Motivated Reasoning.” Psychological Bulletin 108 (3): 480–98.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laebens, Melis G., and Lührmann, Anna. 2021. “What Halts Democratic Erosion? The Changing Role of Accountability.” Democratization 28 (5): 908–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, David G. 1976. “Procedural Norms and Tolerance: A Reassessment.” American Political Science Review 70 (1): 80–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Ziblatt, Daniel. 2018. How Democracies Die: What History Reveals about Our Future. New York: Viking.Google Scholar
Lindner, Nicole M., and Nosek, Brian A.. 2009. “Alienable Speech: Ideological Variations in the Application of Free-Speech Principles.” Political Psychology 30 (1): 67–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, and Taber, Charles S.. 2013. The Rationalizing Voter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lührmann, Anna, and Lindberg, Staffan I.. 2019. “A Third Wave of Autocratization Is Here: What Is New about It?” Democratization 26 (7): 1095–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marcus, George E., Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, Sullivan, John L., and Wood, Sandra L.. 1995. With Malice toward Some: How People Make Civil Liberties Judgments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mason, Lilliana. 2018. Uncivil Agreement: How Politics Became Our Identity. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClosky, Herbert. 1964. “Consensus and Ideology in American Politics.” American Political Science Review 58 (2): 361–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Monroe, Burt L., Colaresi, Michael P., and Quinn, Kevin M.. 2008. “Fightin’ Words: Lexical Feature Selection and Evaluation for Identifying the Content of Political Conflict.” Political Analysis 16 (4): 372–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munck, Gerardo L., Møller, Jørgen, and Skaaning, Svend-Erik. 2020. “Conceptualization and Measurement: Basic Distinctions and Guidelines.” In The SAGE Handbook of Research Methods in Political Science and International Relations, eds. Curini, Luigi and Franzese, Robert, 331–52. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana Carole. 2002. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oates, Stephen B. 1977. With Malice toward None: A Life of Abraham Lincoln. New York: HaperCollins.Google Scholar
Oser, Jennifer, and Hooghe, Marc. 2018. “Democratic Ideals and Levels of Political Participation: The Role of Political and Social Conceptualisations of Democracy.” The British Journal of Politics and International Relations 20 (3): 711–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pehe, Jiri. 2018. “Explaining Eastern Europe: Czech Democracy under Pressure.” Journal of Democracy 29 (3): 65–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pérez, Enrique Hernández. 2016. “Europeans’ View of Democracy.” Chap. 3 in How Europeans View and Evaluate Demcoracy, eds. Ferrín, Mónica and Kriesi, Hanspeter. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Prothro, James W., and Grigg, Charles M.. 1960. “Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases of Agreement and Disagreement.” The Journal of Politics 22 (2): 276–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam. 1999. “Minimalist Conception of Democracy: A Defense.” In Democracy’s Value, eds. Shapiro, Ian and Hacker-Cordón, Casiano, 23–55. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitter, Philippe C., and Karl, Terry Lynn. 1991. “What Democracy Is … and Is Not.” Journal of Democracy 2 (3): 75–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York: Harper & Brothers.Google Scholar
Sniderman, Paul M., Philip E. Tetlock, James M. Glaser, Donald Philip Green, and Michael Hout. 1989. “Principled Tolerance and the American Mass Public.” British Journal of Political Science 19 (1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stouffer, Samuel A. 1955. Communism, Conformity and Liberties. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Sullivan, John L., Piereson, James, and Marcus, George E.. 1982. Political Tolerance and American Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tappin, Ben M., Pennycook, Gordon, and Rand, David G.. 2020a. “Rethinking the Link between Cognitive Sophistication and Politically Motivated Reasoning.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 150 (6): 1095–1114.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tappin, Ben M., Pennycook, Gordon, and Rand, David G.. 2020b. “Thinking Clearly about Causal Inferences of Politically Motivated Reasoning: Why Paradigmatic Study Designs Often Undermine Causal Inference.” Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences 34 (August): 81–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Ham, Carolien, and Thomassen, Jacques. 2017. “The Myth of Legitimacy Decline: An Empirical Evaluation of Trends in Political Support in Established Democracies.” In Myth and Reality of the Legitimacy Crisis: Explaining Trends and Cross-National Differences in Established Democracies, eds. Carolien van Ham, Jacques Thomassen, Kees Aarts, and Rudy Andeweg, 17–35. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, Annemarie S., and Redlawsk, David P.. 2019. “Voters’ Partisan Responses to Politicians’ Immoral Behavior.” Political Psychology 40 (5): 1075–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Webster, Steven W., and Abramowitz, Alan I.. 2017. “The Ideological Foundations of Affective Polarization in the U.S. Electorate.” American Politics Research 45 (4): 621–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wetherell, Geoffrey A., Brandt, Mark J., and Reyna, Christine. 2013. “Discrimination across the Ideological Divide.” Social Psychological and Personality Science 4 (6): 658–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Timothy D., and Brekke, Nancy. 1994. “Mental Contamination and Mental Correction: Unwanted Influences on Judgments and Evaluations.” Psychological Bulletin 116 (1): 117–42.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wuttke, Alexander, Gavras, Konstantin, and Schoen, Harald. 2020. “Leader of the Free World or Pioneer in Democracy’s Decline? Examining the Democratic Deconsolidation Hypothesis on the Mass Level in East and West Germany.” Research & Politics 7 (1): 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuttke, Alexander, Gavras, Konstantin, and Schoen, Harald. 2022. “Have Europeans Grown Tired of Democracy? New Evidence from Eighteen Consolidated Democracies, 1981-2018.” British Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 416–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wuttke, Alexander, Schimpf, Christian, and Schoen, Harald. 2020. “When the Whole Is Greater Than the Sum of Its Parts: On the Conceptualization and Measurement of Populist Attitudes and Other Multidimensional Constructs.” American Political Science Review 114 (2): 356–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Krishnarajan Dataset

Dataset https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/WGPHFT
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Krishnarajan supplementary material

Appendix
Download Krishnarajan supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 923.2 KB
Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.